XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks, rec.arts.poems   
   XPost: rec.sport.pro-wrestling, alt.idiot.will-dockery   
   From: noemail@here.invalidd   
      
   "Bertie the Bunyip"  wrote in message   
   news:gljcf5$mr8$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...   
   > spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3   
   > @blue.rahul.net:   
   >   
   >> vaughn  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not   
   >>> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the   
   >>> other engine" likely.  It is possible I suppose, but not likely.   
   >>> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,   
   >>> but it is dangerous to bet against it.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that   
   >> each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely   
   >> either.   
   >   
   >   
   > Yea,h it is actualy.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at   
   >> the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be   
   >> blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird   
   >> theory is correct.   
   >   
   > not neccesarily.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > Bertie   
      
   MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT DID IT LIKE THEY DID 9-11   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)